20080930final_order_no_30647.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
September 30, 2008
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR THE
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND
NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC
AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO
CASE NOS. A VU-08-
A VU-08-
ORDER NO. 30647
On April 3 , 2008, Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities (Avista; Company) filed an
Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) for authority to increase
its rates and charges for electric and natural gas service in Idaho. The Commission in this Order
approves the Stipulation offered as a proposed settlement of the rate issues in Case Nos. A VU-
08-01 and A VU-08-01. The Parties to the Stipulation are: Avista; Potlatch Corporation
(Potlatch); the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI); and Commission
Staff. The Commission finds the proposed settlement to be fair, just and reasonable and in the
public interest.
Rate changes approved with an effective date of October 1 , 2008, increase authorized
annual base tariff revenues for electric service by $23.2 million, or 11.98%, and for natural gas
service by $3.9 million, or 4.7%. The net amount of actual increase will vary by class of
customer and usage. An average electric residential customer (Schedule 1) using 977 kilowatt
hours of electricity per month will see a $7.89 per month increase. This includes an increase in
the basic monthly customer service charge from $4.00 to $4.60. An average residential natural
gas customer (Schedule 101) using 65 therms per month will see an increase of $4.03 per month.
This includes an increase in the monthly basic customer service charge from $3.28 to $4.00.
The Commission in this Order also announces the contemporaneous establishment of
a generic docket to examine energy affordability issues (GNR-08-, Order No. 30644),
approves increased funding for low-income weatherization, and authorizes funding for low-
income outreach and conservation education. An intervenor funding grant of $3 400 is approved
for the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI).
ORDER NO. 30647
Initial Application
On April 3, 2008, Avista filed an Application with the Commission for authority to
recover $32.3 million (16.7%) in additional annual electric revenue and $4.7 million (5.8%) in
additional annual natural gas revenue. Tr. p. 81.
Electric
The proposed revenue increase for electric servIce requested in this case, the
Company states, is driven primarily by increased power supply costs (including higher retail
loads, reduced hydro generation, increased fuel costs, increased Mid-Columbia purchases, and
increased transmission expenses), capital investments in generation, transmission and
distribution plant to increase capacity and reliability, various hydro relicensing costs, and the
Company s investment in advanced meter reading (AMR). Tr. pp. 83-85.
Natural Gas
Driving the natural gas rate request in this case is A vista s investment in expanding
the natural gas storage and delivery capacity at its Jackson Prairie Storage Facility and the
Company s investment in advanced meter reading (AMR). Tr. p. 85. The proposed rate change
for natural gas customers does not reflect changes in the cost of natural gas purchased by A vista
to serve customers. Changes in the cost of natural gas are reflected in the Company s annual
Purchased Gas Adjustment.
Evidence in support ofthe Company s need for a rate increase for electric and natural
gas is based on a 2007 test year. Tr. p. 83. The Company in its initial Application proposed an
average rate of return on rate base of 8.74%, with a 47.94% common equity ratio and a 10.
return on equity. Also identified was a cost of debt of 6.84% and a long-term debt component of
52.06%. Tr. p. 88. Avista alleges that unless it is authorized to increase its rates, the Company
rates will not be fair, just and reasonable and it will not have the opportunity to realize a fair
return on its investment.
The Company s base rates and charges for electric and natural gas service were last
adjusted in 2004 (Case Nos. A VU-04-01lA VU-04-, Order No. 29602). An additional
electric rate adjustment related to the Coyote Springs II generating project was implemented
April 12, 2005 (Case No. A VU-05-0l).
ORDER NO. 30647
Stipulation and Proposed Settlement (hereafter "Stipulation
On July 28, 2008, the Commission Staff filed with the Commission a Notice of Intent
to Engage in Settlement Discussions. RP 272. A settlement conference was subsequently held
on July 31 , 2008, wherein all parties to the case as of that date (the Settlement Parties) were
present and participated. Pursuant to settlement discussions, the Settlement Parties entered into a
Stipulation that purports to resolve all issues raised in this proceeding. RP 272-276. The
Stipulation was filed with the Commission on August 8, 2008. Tr. Exh. 101. Under the terms of
the Stipulation, Avista is authorized to recover $23.2 million (11.98%) in additional annual
electric revenue and $3.9 million (4.7%) in additional annual natural gas revenues. Stipulation ~
2. The Stipulation represents a compromise of the positions of the Settlement Parties in this
proceeding. Stipulation ~ 15. The Settlement Parties represent that the Stipulation is in the
public interest and that all of its terms and conditions are fair, just and reasonable. Stipulation ~
18.
Parties of Record
A Notice of Application and Notice of Intervention Deadline was issued by the
Commission on April 16, 2008, setting a May 9, 2008 deadline for intervention. Two parties
timely filed for, and were granted, intervention - Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) and
Community Action Partnership of Idaho (CAP AI).On August 18, 2008 , Bennett Forest
Industries, Inc. (Bennett Forest) filed an untimely Petition for Intervention and was granted
intervention with qualified participatory rights. Order No. 30632, August 27, 2008. Bennett
Forest did not participate in settlement negotiations or sign the Stipulation, but in post-hearing
written comments filed September 5, 2008, states it "does not oppose approval of the Settlement
Stipulation." Bennett Comments p. 4.
Public WorkshopslHearings
Public workshops for A vista customers were held in Moscow and Coeur d' Alene on
July 23 and 24, 2008 , respectively for the purpose of explaining the Company s initial
Application and to provide an opportunity for customers to ask questions of Commission Staff.
On August 28, 2008, a technical and evidentiary hearing on the Settlement Stipulation
was held in Boise. Public hearings in northern Idaho were held in Lewiston and Sandpoint on
August 27 and 28, 2008. At the technical hearing the following parties appeared by and through
their respective counsel:
ORDER NO. 30647
CAP AI
David J. Meyer
Conley E. Ward
Brad M. Purdy
Scott D. Woodbury
Dean 1. Miller
A vista Corporation
Potlatch
Commission Staff
Bennett Forest Industries, Inc.
Pursuant to Rule 274 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure
, "
when a settlement
be it active or passive, is presented to the Commission, the Commission will prescribe
procedures appropriate to the nature of the settlement to consider the settlement." As reflected in
the Commission s Rules, the Commission is not bound by settlements. RP 276. Proponents of a
proposed settlement carry the burden of showing that the settlement is reasonable, in the public
interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy. RP 275. On August 12 2008
the Proposed Settlement was noticed, an August 22 deadline for supporting testimony was set
public and technical hearings on the settlement were scheduled, and a September 5 deadline for
public comments was established.
Settlement Terms
The terms of the Stipulation are described and discussed below. Testimony
supporting the Stipulation was presented on August 28, 2008 by A vista witness Kelly Norwood
Vice President of State and Federal Regulation for the Company; Commission Staff witness
Randy Lobb, Administrator of the Utilities Division; and Terri Ottens, Policy Director of
CAP AI.
Cost of Capital- Stipulation
The Settlement Parties agree that A vista s cost of capital will be determined using a
capital structure consisting of 47.94% common stock equity and 52.06% long-term debt, the
same as proposed in the original Application. Avista s authorized return on equity (ROE) will be
10.2% (Application 10.8%); its cost of debt 6.84%. These components produce an authorized
rate of return (ROR) of 8.45% (Application 8.74%). Tr. pp. 86-88.
10.2% return on equity, Staff states, is within the range Staff would have
recommended if the case were fully litigated. It is a return that was approved in A vista s recent
Washington settlement and is reasonable, Staff contends, given the improved financial
performance of the Company and improved credit rating upgrades for A vista by Standard & Poor
ORDER NO. 30647
and Moody s. It also recognizes the ongoing capital requirements of the Company and the need
for investment grade ratings. Tr. p. 45.
Revenue Requirement Stipulation ~ 7
In supporting testimony, Staff states it established an overall revenue requirement
target that it believed could be achieved with reasonable and reliable certainty and then
negotiated adjustments that had debatable and less compelling justification to arrive at an overall
revenue requirement compromise. Tr. p. 42. Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Stipulation, Avista
will be authorized to recover $23 163 000 in additional annual electric revenue and $3 878 000
in additional annual natural gas revenue, representing an 11.98% and 4.7% increase in electric
and natural gas annual base tariff revenues, respectively.
In determining these revenue increases the parties have agreed to various adjustments
to the Company s filing. Exh. 101 , Appendix 1. Individual adjustments, the Company states
should not be viewed in isolation; rather they should be viewed in total as part of the entire
Stipulation, and are the result of hard bargaining and compromise. Tr. p. 86. The Stipulation
summarizes the adjustments made by the Settlement Parties to the Company s electric general
rate case filing and discusses specific accounting treatment for (a) Spokane River relicensing, (b)
confidential litigation, (c) Montana riverbed litigation, and (d) revenues associated with sale of
carbon financial instruments (CFIs). Stipulation ~ 9a-d; Tr. pp. 88-93. Other adjustments are
detailed in Stipulation ~ 7(b) in a summary table. The nature of the adjustments consist of (a)
deferral of pending capital and expense additions; (b) removal of proformed test year costs as not
known and measurable" or not "used and useful"; and (c) elimination or reduction of
inappropriate or unjustified costs. Tr. p. 40. The Proposed Settlement is based upon a 2007
historical test year adjusted for known and measurable expense changes and major capital
additions through 2008. Tr. p. 40. As proposed, the revised tariff schedules would become
effective October 1 2008. Stipulation ~
Staff states that for natural gas service, $3 million of the agreed $3.8 million increase
IS associated with acquisition of Jackson Prairie Natural Gas Storage and installation of
automated meters (AMR), both planned for completion in the fourth quarter of 2008. Additional
storage will provide benefits to gas customers through the annual Purchased Gas Adjustment
(PGA). Automated Meter Reading (AMR) will provide savings in meter reading and customer
ORDER NO. 30647
servIce expense. The technology would allow for time of use or critical peak pricing; although
additional changes would be required for data storage and billing. Tr. pp. 44, 85 , 114-115.
Cost of Service
In its investigation, Staff reviewed Avista s cost of service (COS) models for electric
and gas service and found that the methodology has not changed from the Company s 2004
general rate case filing. Tr. p. 37. The electric load data used in the Company s cost of service
model was generated in the 1980s and was statistically updated in 1993 (i., adjusted based on
changes in customer counts and load per customer that occurred between 1980 and 1993). Tr.
pp. 49, 60. Given the age of the load data, Staff believes that cost of service results in this case
can be used only as a general guideline for assigning revenue responsibility and cannot be used
to make meaningful changes in class revenue contribution or justify significant changes in rate
design. Tr. pp. 37-39. Avista concedes that the present load study information is dated, but
contends that does not mean it's bad data , or that it's not representative of the cost to serve
customers. Tr. p. 126. While A vista has agreed to engage in new load studies, the Company is
only now selecting the hourly meters. The information necessary to update the cost of service
analysis will not be available until late 2009. Tr. pp. 49, 75. Consequently, the Parties agreed to
use the current results to move all classes halfway to COS as specified by the study. Tr. p. 49.
Rate Spread Stipulation ~ 12
Appendix 2 to the Stipulation reflects the impact on each service schedule of the
agreed-upon electric and natural gas increases. As reflected in Stipulation ~ 12, the proposed
electric revenue increase of $23.2 million represents an overall increase of 11.98% in base rates
and, with one exception, is spread on a uniform percentage basis to all schedules. However
Schedule 25P for the Potlatch Lewiston facility will receive an increase of 10.36% in order to
reflect a Schedule 25P rate that is no higher than the tail block rate of Schedule 25. The
Schedule 25P adjustment can be supported by cost of service and load data, the Company states
because Schedule 25 and 25P customers have hourly meters. Tr. p. 105. The Schedule 25P
Potlatch plant is a high load factor customer and is three times the combined size of all Schedule
25 customers (i., 100 aMW). Tr. pp. 112-113. With this change the relative rate of return for
Schedule 25P will move approximately halfway toward unity (i., toward full cost of service J,
and be more consistent with the movement of other service schedules. All other schedules will
receive a 12.3% percent increase. Tr. pp. 49-, 98, 104. The monthly bill of a residential
ORDER NO. 30647
electric customer using 977 kWh/month (the average for Avista) will increase by $7.89/month.
Tr. p. 54. The proposed increase by customer class and a comparison of present and proposed
rate components are set forth in Attachment 1 to this Order.
The spread of the increased natural gas revenue requirement of $3.8 million is also set
forth in Appendix 2, and represents an overall increase of 4.7% in base rates. It reflects a
reduction to what the Company had proposed by way of an increase for each of the gas service
schedules proportional to the reduction and the overall increase. An average gas customer who
uses 65 therms/month will see an increase of $4.03/month. Tr. pp. 50, 54 , 98.
Rate Design Stipulation ~ 13
Neither A vista nor Staff believes major changes in rate design are warranted given
the imprecise and dated nature of the Company s cost of service studies. Tr. p. 51. A vista, Staff
notes, remains the only electric utility in Idaho with true residential tiered rates - a second block
differential of 13% for usage over 600 kWh/month. Tr. p. 52. The parties to the Stipulation in ~
12 agree to an increase in the electric and demand charges as recommended in the Company
original filing, and summarized in Appendix 2. This includes an increase in the residential
monthly basic charge from $4.00 to $4.60. This increase, Staff states, represents the increasing
monthly costs of metering and billing. All other rate components are increased by a uniform
percentage to generate the required revenue. Tr. pp. 52, 90. In filed written comments, the
Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) opposes an increase to the base rates, which it states
disproportionately impacts low-income customers and customers on fixed incomes.
Regarding natural gas rate design, the Settlement Parties agree to apply the increase
in rates within each service schedule in the same manner as proposed by the Company in its
original filing. The monthly base charge for the residential schedule will increase from $3.26 to
$4.00. Tr. pp. 52, 90. As with the electric base rate, ICAN similarly opposes any increase to the
base rate for gas.
As reflected in Staff testimony, Staff and Avista discussed adjusting block size and
rate differentials in the future once accurate cost of service data is available. They will also
investigate whether there are economies of scale (bundling of electric/gas service) that could
allow reduced monthly customer charges when a customer takes both gas and electric service.
Tr. p. 52.
ORDER NO. 30647
PCA Authorized Level of Expense
--
Stipulation
Stipulation Exhibit 101 , Appendix 3 (Attachment 2 to this Order) specifies the use of
2009 power supply costs for use in the Company s monthly Power Cost Adjustment (PCA)
calculations and in the treatment of power supply costs associated with retail load and revenue
credit. Stipulation ~ 10; Tr. p. 40.
Staff concludes that the inputs and assumptions used by A vista, including those
related to fuel prices and loads, are reasonable. Tr. p. 47. Staff agreed with the Company
proposal to use 2009 loads in the calculation of base power supply costs recognizing that
normalized power supply costs included in base rates are always based on an estimate or a
forecast. Tr. pp. 47, 48. In addition, Staff notes that the Company included a hydro mitigation
adjustment in its calculation that reduces the base rate power supply costs and a production
property adjustment that reduces the base rate revenue requirement for generation to serve 2009
loads. Appendix 3 of the Stipulation notes that the retail revenue credit will be $41.45/MWh for
October-December 2008 and then $53.63/MWh for 2009. The Company benefits from using
2009 loads by reducing its exposure to the retail revenue adjustment embedded in the PCA. Tr.
p. 48. Adjustments to the Company s proposed power supply costs were discussed during
settlement negotiations and an annual $735 000 reduction in the Priest Rapids contract price
recoverable in rates was incorporated. Tr. pp. 48, 49.
Prudency of Energy Efficiency Expenditures Stipulation ~ 11
The Settlement Parties in Stipulation ~ 11 agree that Avista s expenditures for electric
and natural gas energy efficiency programs from November 1 2003 through December 31 , 2007
were prudently incurred.
Customer-Related Issues - Stipulation ~ 14
Low-Income DSM Funding (Stipulation 14a)
Currently only 10% of homes receiving LIHEAP benefits are weatherized. Tr. p.
140. The Settlement Parties agree to increase the annual level of funding provided to Idaho
service (CAP) agencies for low-income demand-side management (DSM) weatherization
programs from $350 000 to $465 000, which includes administrative overhead. The increased
funding will come from the Company s existing DSM tariff riders. Tr. pp. 54 94.
In filed written comments, the Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) states that
weatherization benefits cost an average of $3 366 per household. ICAN believes that the
ORDER NO. 30647
$115 000 increase to low-income weatherization is too little. Even if weatherization costs have
not increased at all in three years, a $115 000 increase will serve only an additional 34
households. ICAN states that low-income weatherization program funding should be increased
to $700 000.
Staff notes that the ratio of customers to dollars committed for weatherization is fairly
similar for Avista and Idaho Power. In fact, Avista s investment, Staff contends, is greater than
either Idaho Power and PacifiCorp. Tr. p. 63.
Fundingfor Outreach for Low-Income Conservation (Stipulation 14b)
CAP AI is concerned that the combined proposed increases in fees and rates will add
to the already unwieldy energy cost burden that low-income families in Idaho face. Tr. p. 138.
The Settlement Parties agree that annual funding through the DSM tariff rider in the amount of
$25 000 will be provided to Idaho (CAP) agencies for the purpose of underwriting agency
personnel assisting in low-income outreach and conservation education. Tr. p. 94.
Establishment of Generic Workshops on Energy Affordability (Stipulation 14c)
A vista agrees to support and actively participate in any Commission-established
workshops for the purpose of examining issues surrounding energy affordability and ability of
customers to pay energy bills. As part of this process, A vista agrees to explore the feasibility of
establishing a Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP), or something similar. Tr. p. 94.
Reference new Commission Docket No. GNR-08-01. Staff suggests that universal service and
alternative rate designs be included as discussion topics in the workshops. Tr. p. 57. The
Commission noted at hearing that sometimes what is done by working groups on the outside can
format the structure of the legislative review of those issues and how legislation is developed.
Tr. p. 124.
A vista identifies the following additional programs that are available to assist
customers with the proposed rate increase: Energy Efficiency programs, Project Share, Comfort
Level Billing, Payment Arrangements, the Customer Assistance Referral and Evaluation
Services (CARES) program, and customer service automation. Tr. pp. 95-98.
Customer Comments and Testimony
The Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN) appeared at the Commission
August 27 hearing in Lewiston and also submitted written comments. ICAN opposes the rate
hike and the Proposed Settlement and urges the Commission to continue with the rate case
ORDER NO. 30647
process, including investigation and preparation of testimony by Commission Staff and public
hearings after Staff testimony has been made public. The role of the Commission, ICAN
contends
, "
is to protect the interests of the customers, rather than the utility company
shareholders. "ICAN Comments p. ICAN appears to believe that the settlement was
negotiated by the utility and the intervening parties before Commission Staff had time to review
the Company s filing. While the CAP agencies and other organizations may speak for some
consumers, ICAN contends they cannot speak for all consumers. ICAN is concerned about
settlement negotiations being conducted in a secret meeting without public input.
The opposition of ICAN to the proposed increase is generally representative of other
written comments filed by customers, customers on fixed incomes who budget every penny. Tr.
p. 10. Many customers cite a newspaper article in the Spokesman Review reporting a 72%
quarterly jump in Avista profits as reason to deny the Company s proposed rate increase. The
Company explains the inaccuracy of the Spokesman Review headline beginning at Tr. p. 130
concluding that for calendar year 2007 the Company still failed to realize the overall Idaho return
authorized by the Commission. Profit or earnings, the Company contends, is really the interest
piece for the investor; and if that return is not attractive enough, investors will take their money
someplace else. Tr. p. 133.
Customers also cite what they believe to be excessive executive compensation for
A vista employees. The Spokesman Review reports a total annual compensation for the top five
Avista executives of approximately $3.6 million. In its testimony, Staff notes that the Settlement
in Idaho is based on annual rate base compensation of $1.45 million for the top five executives
or 40% of the total $3.6 million compensation. While still seemingly high, Staff states that if all
compensation included in rates for the top 12 executives were eliminated, the effect would be a
rate reduction of less than 0.5%.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case Nos.
A VU-08-01 and A VU-08-01 including Stipulation provisions and the comments of
customers. The supporting context for the Commission deliberation regarding the
reasonableness of the Stipulation terms is the Commission s August 28, 2008 transcript of the
technical and evidentiary hearing in this case. The Commission is also informed by the
transcripts of Lewiston and Sandpoint, Idaho proceedings where customers and other parties of
ORDER NO. 30647
interest were provided the opportunity to raise their concerns and gIve testimony on the
Settlement Stipulation, and by filed public comments, including the written comments of Bennett
Forest. The Commission finds that the established record forms a sufficient basis for decision
and that no further hearing or procedure is required.
Settlements are reviewed under Commission Rules of Procedure 274-276.
incorporate by reference the submitted Stipulation (and Proposed Settlement) as if set forth
herein in its entirety. See Tr. Exh. 101.
The Commission finds it necessary to correct the misperception of some at public
hearing and in written comments that the settlement process is a private and secret process that
excludes participation and does not provide for representation of all customers. The
Commission s Rules of Procedure establish the framework for settlements.RP 271-276.
Settlements may involve one or more parties. If Commission Staff is involved in settlement
negotiations, Staff must provide other parties with notice. Staff must also give all other parties
an opportunity to participate in or be apprised of the course of the settlement negotiations before
a final settlement involving Staff is reached. RP 272. The problem in a general rate case
affecting different customer classes is that not all customer interests are the same. In fact
customers often have opposing interests. The only truly common interest of all customers is to
limit the increase allowed the Company. Commission Staff, whether processing a case through
hearing or through settlement, represents the interests of all customer classes. This is the
objective of the Staff regardless of the process followed, and is a result, Staff believes, that can
sometimes be best achieved through settlement. Tr. p. 39.
Participants in settlement negotiations must be parties of record. Early on in this rate
case the Commission issued a Notice of Intervention Deadline. One of the stated purposes of
intervention, as set forth in our Notice, is "to participate in settlement or negotiation
conferences.Without intervenor status, public participation in the settlement process in this
case was limited to testifying at the public hearings or filing written comments.
As a general rule, settlement talks are not initiated until parties are familiar with a
utility s application, have participated in the discovery process, have a familiarity with the issues
presented in the case and have developed party positions and goals. Participants are expected to
have a good grasp of the case they themselves would present, including the witnesses they would
use and the testimony they would file. Only then are they able to sit down and engage in
ORDER NO. 30647
constructive and fruitful dialogue. Negotiations do not always result in settlement. Unless all
participants agree to the contrary, the positions taken in negotiations are confidential. RP 272.
This condition of confidentially allows for candid discussions by the parties and an opportunity
for compromise. The advantage of a negotiated settlement is that the parties themselves are able
to craft mutually acceptable terms. Even then however, under Rule 275 of the Commission
Rules of Procedure, proponents of a proposed settlement carry the burden of proof showing that
the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with the law or
regulatory policy.
As stated in Rule 276
The Commission is not bound by settlements. It will independently review
any settlement proposed to it to determine whether the settlement is just, fair
and reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or
regulatory policy. When a settlement is presented for decision, the
Commission may accept the settlement, reject the settlement, or state
additional conditions under which the settlement will be accepted.
...
We find that the process used and notice given in this case complies with the letter and spirit of
the Commission s Settlement Rules. IDAPA 31.01.01.271-276.
As reflected in the August 28 , 2008 transcript of proceedings, the Company in this
case initially requested authority to recover $32.3 million (16.7%) in additional annual electric
revenue and $4.7 million (5.8%) in additional annual natural gas revenue. Tr. p. 81. In the
Stipulation, the Settlement Parties agree that the Company will be authorized to recover $23.2
million (11.98%) in additional annual electric revenue and $3.9 million (4.7%) in additional
annual natural gas revenue. Stipulation ~
In arriving at their recommended rate increase for the Company s Idaho electric and
gas operations, the Settlement Parties agree that the cost of capital for A vista will be determined
using a capital structure consisting of 47.94% common stock equity and 52.06% long-term debt.
Avista s agreed authorized return on equity (ROE) will be 10., a reduction from the 10.
ROE originally requested; the Company s cost of debt is recognized to be 6.84%. These
components produce an authorized rate of return of 8.45%. Stipulation ~ 7a.
The Commission at hearing inquired of the Company regarding its intentions to
update its "cost of service" study as part of its next general rate case filing. Under Commission
Rules of Procedure (Rule 121.01.e), a general rate case by Avista must be accompanied by
ORDER NO. 30647
appropriate cost of service studies." Bennett Forest in post-hearing comments suggests that "
the absence of a current cost of service study, it is difficult for the Commission to make a record-
based evidentiary finding that allocations to customer classes, and resulting rates, are fair, just
and reasonable. Avista is a multi-jurisdictional utility. Once the Company s Idaho jurisdictional
costs are determined the next step is to allocate those costs among the different customer classes.
This assigning of cost responsibility is generally done with a cost of service study. Certainly the
Commission s preference in decision-making is to have good studies and the most recent and
best information available. We prefer actual data to statistical estimates or forecasts. A vista
informs the Commission that it may not have complete load data that it can roll into a cost of
service study until late 2009. Tr. p. 75. A cost of service study, while useful, is not a perfect
tool for assigning system and service costs to customer classes. Load data is only one element of
a cost of service study. This Commission relies on a cost of service study as a starting point to
allocate costs, but in the end we must, and do, consider other factors such as rate continuity,
equity and proportionality. We expect as always that the Company in its rate filings will comply
with the Commission s procedural requirements. Avista states a cost of service study will be
provided in its next rate case. Presently only Schedule 25 and Schedule 25P customers have
hourly meters. Tr. p. 105. The Company contends that the completed load data for other classes
will result only in a fine-tuning as opposed to a major shift in dollars, whether it be across
customer classes or within schedules. Tr. p. 126. In this case the Commission finds the
Company- filed cost of service study to be sufficient to determine rate design in this case. We
direct the Company in its next general rate case to provide updated load data as part of its COS
study or, in the alternative, show how the lack of such an update affects COS-based revenue
allocations to customer classes.
The Commission finds the Stipulation and negotiated settlement terms submitted in
these cases to be fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest. As represented, we find that
the Settlement is a compromise by all Settlement Parties. We find the proposed $23.2 million
(11.98%) authorized increase in electric revenue and $3.9 million (4.7%) authorized increase in
natural gas revenue to be fair, just and reasonable, as is spreading the increase to customer
classes in the manner set forth in the Stipulation, including the proposed increase in base charges
for electric and gas residential customers. Idaho Code 9 61-502. We find the proposed uniform
percentage spread of the rate adjustment to be reasonable given the age of the COS data. We
ORDER NO. 30647
also find the adjustment made for Schedule 25P reasonable and find it to be supported by
Potlatch's relative load characteristics compared to Schedule 25. The resultant average changes
in electric and gas rates for the Company s customer service schedules that we find reasonable to
approve are set forth in Attachment to this Order. The effective date of implementation is
October 1 2008.
The Commission also authorizes an increase in the base charges for residential
electric and gas customers. We do so in part because it is an integral term of a negotiated
stipulation. Stipulation ~ 13. Testimony reflects also that the increase in the base charge is
justified by the increased monthly cost of metering and billing. Tr. p. 52.
The Stipulation provides for an increase in weatherization program benefits
(Stipulation ~ 14a), and funding for low-income outreach and conservation education
(Stipulation ~ 14b). The funding is payable from the Company s existing DSM tariff riders, and
involves simply a re-allocation of DSM dollars. The increase in weatherization funding is not as
much as ICAN recommends, but as Staff notes, is greater than either Idaho Power or PacifiCorp
in the ratio of customers to dollars committed. Tr. p. 63. The Commission has initiated a
generic case (GNR-08-, Order No. 30644) to examine energy affordability issues.
Stipulation ~ 14c. In that case, we direct Avista and our other major energy providers (Idaho
Power, PacifiCorp and Intermountain Gas) to participate. We encourage CAP AI, ICAN and
other stakeholders to also participate.
In addressing energy affordability for low-income customers, we are reminded by
Bennett Forest that large increases in electric rates also have serious consequences for Schedule
25 industrial customers, many of whom, like Bennett Forest, operate in a competitive market and
do not necessarily have the ability to raise prices to recover increases in operating costs. In
calendar year 2007 Bennett Forest reports it purchased almost 25 million kilowatt hours of
electric energy from A vista, at a cost of almost $1.1 million. There can be no denying that the
cumulative increase to Bennett Forest resulting from increases in this docket and the Company
PCA docket are significant and will have operational consequences. Bennett Forest requests no
change to the Stipulation. Still, in its comments, it reminds this Commission that "rate shock" is
a shorthand expression for regulatory policy that favors rate stability and disfavors abrupt and
significant changes to current rates. This Commission is not oblivious to the consequences of its
rate orders. The volatility in the energy markets however shows no sign of abating. A vista in
ORDER NO. 30647
this case announces its intent to file another rate case in early 2009. A phase-in of rates does not
appear to be a viable option.
Opportunity for real near-term relief for customers, including Bennett Forest, lies in
their ability to enact energy efficiency and conservation measures and reduce their energy
demand. At hearing, Bennett Forest inquired about programs to mitigate rate impacts for large
customers. Tr. p. 110. A vista stated that it has a number of energy efficiency programs for its
industrial customers and Company engineers who will go to customer sites to work with
customers to identify cost recovery measures. We encourage Bennett Forest to take advantage of
this opportunity.
Intervenor Funding
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code 9 61-617 A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165. Section 61-617 A(1) declares that it is the "policy of
(Idaho) to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before this Commission so that
all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings." The statutory
cap for intervenor funding that can be awarded in anyone case is $40 000. Idaho Code 9 61-
617 A(2). Accordingly, the Commission may order any regulated utility with intrastate annual
revenues exceeding $3.5 million to pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for
legal fees, witness fees and reproduction costs not to exceed a total for all intervening parties
combined of $40 000.
On September 10, 2008, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
(CAP AI) filed a Petition for Intervenor Funding. Idaho Code 9 61-617A; RP 161-165. CAPAI
is dedicated to promoting self-sufficiency through removing the causes and conditions of poverty
in Idaho s communities. Tr. p. 136. The organization was created by federal law to help
administer federal low-income programs. Tr. p. 145. CAPAI advanced the low-income
consumer issues addressed in Stipulation ~ 14a, band c. CAP AI requests $3 400. Petition, Exh.
Rule 162 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content
requirements for a Petition for Intervenor Funding. The petition must contain: (1) an itemized
list of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor s proposed finding
or recommendation; (3) a statement showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are
reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship
ORDER NO. 30647
for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing how the intervenor s proposed finding or
recommendation differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff;
(6) a statement showing how the intervenor s recommendation or position addressed issues of
concern to the general body of utility users or customers; and (7) a statement showing the class
of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared. The Petition for Intervenor Funding filed
by CAP AI comports with the procedural and technical requirements of the Commission s Rules.
Commission Findings
Submitted for Commission consideration is the Petition for Intervenor Funding filed
by the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho. The Commission has reviewed the
Petition, the Stipulation and the testimony ofthe Petitioner.
Idaho Code 9 61-617 A includes a statement of policy to encourage participation by
intervenors in Commission findings.The Commission determines an award for intervenor
funding based on the following considerations:
(a)finding that the participation of the intervenor has materially
contributed to the decision rendered by the Commission; and
(b)A finding that the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and
would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; and
(c)The recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially from
the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(d)The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of
concern to the general body of users or consumers.
Idaho Code 9 61-617 A. We find that the Petition of CAP AI satisfies the substantive findings
that we are required to make to justify an award. IDAPA 31.01.01. 165.01.a-e. We find that the
participation and presentation of CAP AI, as reflected in its testimony and the Stipulation
materially contributed to the Commission s decision. CAP AI's participation adds an informed
perspective to the hearing record. We find that the recommendation of CAP AI differed
materially from the testimony of Commission Staff and provided measurable form and substance
to the Settlement Stipulation.
This particular case was resolved by way of settlement and not litigation. CAP AI is a
non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies that assist with issues related to the
causes and conditions of poverty in Idaho. We find it fair, just and reasonable to award the total
ORDER NO. 30647
request of CAP AI in the amount of $3 400 and find that the public interest is well served by such
award. We find the itemized costs of CAP AI to be reasonable and recognize that the cost to
CAP AI of participating in this proceeding constitutes a significant financial hardship. We find
that CAP AI was professional and economical in the marshalling of its time and efforts.
The Commission finds that the intervenor funding award to CAP AI is fair and
reasonable and will further the purpose of encouraging "participation at all stages of all
proceedings before the Commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair
representation in those proceedings.Idaho Code 961-617A(l).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over A vista Corporation dba
A vista Utilities, an electric utility, and the issues presented in this case, pursuant to the powers
granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and pursuant to the Commission s Rules of
Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.000 et seq.including specifically Rules 272 through 280 as pertains
to settlements.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described and qualified
above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission hereby accepts the Stipulation and
Proposed Settlement tendered in Case Nos. A VU-08-01 and A VU-08-01 approving a $23.
million (11.98%) authorized increase in annual base tariff revenues for electric service and a $3.
million (4.7%) authorized increase in annual base tariff revenues for natural gas service for an
effective date of October 1 2008. Reference Order No. 30647, Attachment 1. The Company is
directed to file amended tariffs comporting with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Action Partnership Association of
Idaho s Petition for Intervenor Funding is granted in the amount of $3 400. Reference Idaho
Code 9 61-617 A. A vista is directed to pay said amount to CAP AI within 28 days from the date
ofthis Order. IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02. Avista shall include the cost of this award of intervenor
funding to CAP AI as an expense to be recovered in the Company s next general rate case
proceeding from the residential customer class. Idaho Code 9 61-617A(3).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
ORDER NO. 30647
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code 961-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 30
j-I..
day of September 2008.
i\RSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
bls/O:A VU-08-A VU-08-sw3
ORDER NO. 30647
AV
I
$
T
A

-
Ut
(
L
l
T
i
E
~
.
I
D
A
H
o

~
L
E:
C
t
R
I
C
.
.
.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
IN
C
R
6
A
S
E

'
a.
y
:
$
E
;
~
V
I
G
E

$
C
H
I
E
D
Q
U
r
12

M
O
N
r
H
S

E
N
D
E
D
O
a
C
-
E'
M
B
E
R
3
1
,
2
0
0
7
.
(
9
0
0
s
:
o
f

D
,
ol
t
a
r
s
)

Ba
s
!;
!

T
a
r
i
f
f
aa
s
e

T
!
'
\
r
i
f
f

:
~
~
~
.
To
t
a
l

f
3
l
i
l
f
1
d
'
'
eV
\
i
l
n
l
;
l
~
;
.
'
~?
y
~
n
.
\
.
J
e

.

T
a
.
d
f
f
R.
e
I
/
8
J
i
I
,
I
e
:
Ll
n
~

J
Y
p
e
p
f
~~
h
~
~
.
!J
f
e
t

V
n
d
~
r
P
t
~
.
~~
n
r

.
$e
n
e
n
:
i
I

u.
r
'
)
~
~
r

P
.
r
q
P
:
9
~
.
€;
~

PE
!
.
r
c
~
l
1
t

~
l

Pr
e
s
~
n
t
'
'
:S
:
~
~
i
b
~

J
~
h
:
.
1
m
b
~
r
.
Rq
t
~
:
u
~
(
:
1
J

t
h
c
I
e
.
q$
a
,

-
.
,
tl
;
!
s

,

:
.
!I'
1
.
cr
.
ea
s
E
l

8.
a
t
e
s
(
Z
fa
.
0\

af

.,

.

'
'
"
"

, :
\'

;

'
,c
'
.-

.

'1

.l

'
.
,

.

si
d
e
n
l
l
a
l
$7
!
I
;
2
8
2
$2
4
.
.
.
.
G:
e
~
"
e
r
a
l

S
'
ei
V
r
c
~
11
,
'1
*
'
La
r
Q
e

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

~
~
r
v
k
:
a
08
6
$1
3
01
7
Ex
t
r
a

L
a
r
g
a
G
e
h
g
r
a
t
'
-
$
:
~
i
V
i
G
"
e
:
po
J
l
a
k
h
Py
m
p
l
n
g

Se
P
V
!
(
:
:
~
J5
P
b4
.
0f
5

'
ff
~
p
B1
;
;
3
.
~
,
.,

'
St
t
e
e
t
.
&
A
r
e
'
a
L
I
~
h
t
s
.
41
-
-
4
9
$2
.
51
8
$1
9
.
3
;
~
l
P
ll
"
To
t
a
l
II
)
(I
)
:z
:
.

:
z
:
.
""
I

C
:
:
:
-
I
"t
I

C
o

c
:

II
)

(
I
)

I

:z
:
.
cg

""
I

r
n

0
(I
)

ZO
:
I
:
..
.
a
.
~

~
:
s
:
:
0
w
o
r
n
.
o~
Z
~
0
)

:z
:
.

-
I
c:
:
:

.
.
.
a
.
..
.
.
.
.
.

(;
)
...
a
.
(l
l
EX
'
d
u
d
~
s
an
p
t
e
S
E
i
n
t

r
a
1
e
o
a
d
j
u
s
l
m
e
h
t
s
f
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
.
"

$9
;
2
8
4
$3
;
Q
~
Q
49
4
3
.
'
$1
.
.
61
"
3

.
50
Q
,"
-
$4
f
t
5
ll
i
1
$2
3
Hl
3
$8
4
"
S6
p
p:
O
l
$4
$
,
02
9
$1
4
;
6
9
0
$.
;
3
7
.
~'l
~

:$
4
.
1i
1
~
:
:
~2
J
I
~
8
$h
6
:
A
$
3
12
,
3
3
%
i~
j
3
o
/
~
t~
.
~(
3
'
%
12
!
3
3
%
i~
!
'
1
4

.
1:
,
Q
j
i
i
(
J
'
1~
t
'
33
%
1t
~
9
:
8
%
,
$
n
'
94
1
$2
5
64
0
$4
~
.
~j
~
$1
4
08
4
$3
q
;
!
3
$
7
B!
j
5
51
'
9
$1
~
8
2a
~
..

'
'

(2
)
.
cl
u
d
e
-
s
.
al
l

p
r
e
s
E
i
n
l

r
a
t
s
.

~
d
J
u
.
6
l
m
f
i
i
1
t
s
;
S
t
;
h
e
d
l
l
1
.
e

6
6
-

T

er
n
p
o
r
a
r
y
O
P
C
A

A
d
)
"

S
'
eh
a
q
u
l
e

R
l
-
Er
i
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

H
i
d
e
r

A
d
j
;
,
an
d
S
c
t
)
a
l
'
i
u
l
~

5
9
-
R~
l
;
I
i
d
e
r
j
t
l
a
f
&
,

P
a
t
t
i
'
!

J
;
;
:
n
~
r
f
J
y
R
a
.
r
e

A
d
j
.

'
"

pe
i
'
G
t
:
!
n
t
.
I
n
c
r
PO

13
i
1
l
e
!
:
i
'
nu
~
(h
)
"
12
.
7'3
%
11
:
81
0
/
9
11
.
;
6
8
%
11
0
4
5
%
9.
.
57
"
/1
/
11
;
~
0
"
l
o
12
.
04
0
/
0
11
.
1.)
8
%
A VIStA UTILiTIESIDAHO ELECTRIC
PRESENT AND PROPOSED. RATE COMPONENTS '~y SCHEDULE
(a)
Residential Ser:vice - Schedule 1
Basic Charge
Energy Charge;
First 600 kWhs. .
All oVer SOD. kWhs
General Servic,es -chedule'
Basic Charg~'
EnergyCha\9~: .
First 3 ~b: \(Wl:1.s
AII over 3;050 ~Whs
Demarid'Char:gei:'
213 'iW odes5
Over 2-0kW .
P~I?~ertt
c.~e r a:riff ERM.Prel;~nt
. SCh. Rate .Other Adil1 t-E~ilJiT:1q R~te
. (bJ (q).(d)
$4.$4.
$Q..0584p r$O~~JO206) $O.O563~
$0.096'1-2: . 'C:$.fl.O2Q6)" .$0.06406:
:g~$~; . ;~~:~~:~;~~~:~~.
no'riharge'
$'3,S0/kW
Larqe G.eneral.
~$,
ervice."Schedule it
Energy Charg~: "
. ...
Fi~st 25.Q,OQO.kWt)s $0;04&00
A!IOver:~5:b .QOo.~ kWt\s $O~04097
Demand Oharge:
50 kiN Gf i~s~
Over-:50 ~W
PrimaiYV6~~Qe DiScount
. $250:00,
$3,OOlkW
$0'.20fkW
Extra'Larcle:GenernIServlt:e-Sch~dii!e.
Enerw Chai'$e;
FirSf'50p:'0QO.
~$
. $0;04942'
All Qver $:PO;QQP..kWhs $d,~3~9
Demand Qhifi:rge; .
OOO:kva 'orle~
Over3:~qC ~~
Primary 'Ygii, DisCQUbt
. Anmiai Minimum
Potlatch .ScheiiUle2SP
Ena(gy;Chargs: ..
. .
all kWh::;
. o.en'lari.oCh~me;
00.0 kv~p~:les~
Over 3.000 kv.a
Primary Vqlt. Disc!,J.unt
. Annual Minimum
Punlpinq.S:ervice- Si::hedule21
B:asic :Charge .
E,n$rgy ChaJg~:
Fit-s(1 f55 kW/kWh
Aliadditiona'J kWh~
:rTOch:atge
$3~50/kW'
$O:Q~40 ,$(;1 ;0514.0
$9~b.OO4.ti '0:04431
$2'50.00.
:$3.bOlkW .
$O'.201k.W
$~~gd~~:~~:6~~~
~~~
Qq-p '. $;bQ(l
$2.::t5jkva :$2.75fkVa
$O.201kW . $'O;2DlkW
Pt~f#lt ' $.;11:1..4,70 .
$Q.03404.
~iQop'
$2.7$1:k,va
$O;2OJkW
Present:
$D~QO
$b.O65p5
$d_b.~5$9
O~i:Jq313 ~O~O:3.i1'
~ep~al Proposed . PropoSed
Rate Billing BC!se TariffInc~Rate Rate
(e)(t)
(g)
$t).$4.$4.
. '
$\I~OO71;O $0.06346 $.0;06552
$0.00804 $tJ.OT21 0 . $0.07416
$G.50
~();
Oq91~
$o~OO17a
$-6~50 .
$.~;.oOO
~2'..15ik\i9
$o.10tkW
$482 44..0
6..0.0
~Q~O:O34$ :$O;ge!$~.
$biO'O343 $ij~b5932
$6.
O~O&97P- - . $0,08208 .
SCJI7363 $oJrzOO1:
nb:Cha.i'ge'
$Q:5:01KW
. nri:c:\iarg~ .
$~UIDMW $4.QO/kW
~Q;$.()~84 $iU),S724
$.iJ;()9497 '
. $()..
G4934 .
$0.05384
$0.04'594
$25.
$O,5G/kW
. $27"5,00 .
$3,50lkW .
$O,20/kW
. ~275,
$3;50ikW
$O;2QIkW
$D.QO~9 $Q.O:47~ij
$0.:00397'
, $.
0;04055
$1':000
$~~~O/kVa .
$10;000 .$10 0'00
$g.
4p/kv~. $3.2$(kva'
$?~~9J~W'. $Qieo/KVV
$.-11:;4Q.Q
$Q.OQ3.1,8 .$0. ()403,5 $t:tO3722
$1;006 $10 0:00 $10 fHfO
$b;50fl~.v.a $3.25/kva $325/kva
$O,20/kW $O.20/kW
$~29,42fl
~6;50 $6.
$O.O:OS15 $0.01713 $0;07370
$0.00695 $0.06627 $0.6284
(1) fnclude~ .all prE!senttate.adJiJstments: Sch~dLJle;PQ-Teii;lPJ~r~fy1?-QA-AiJj." s..c~$d\1r$:9~,.:E;p€!tgyEffiGiMCY- Ri9Ef Aqi-,
and "SchediJle S9.Re'sidehtia1.& Fi3hi1.1Ertetgy Rat$ h~j-:(pel1~ 1 OM!y).
ATTACHMENT 1
Case No. AVU-08-01/AVU-08-
Order No. 30647
Page 2 of 4
AVISTAUTI UTI ES.IqAriO GAS
PRQPO5EDINCREA;S~'j3?(?ERVlc.E SCHEDUlE'
12:MONTHSaiPEP PI;CEiYtBER31, 2007
(000.qf Dpllcars) -
. Line
N();
Type. of
Skr\itce
. (a)
'Gen~ral Serviee.
2 LargeGener~I S~rvic~
3 'IntetrPpt1~!~$etVj\::e
. 4 Trnh~portat!o'hSetvice
=5 $peciaH:;ontr.a~
Total
. Base Tariff
Revenue
Schedule Under Present
Nurrib~r RateMl)(0) .(c)
$63 207
7..~Q9
Base Tariff
Propo$ed Revenue
General Uf1lder Proposed
Increas'e . Rates
(d)
$3;;375 .
$4&6.
$3.878
~66,582
. '$'~'
$55
$1$$$82:
111
; '
1$.~f$67
$41-7 '$42.~l
$211
$'85,950.
146
148 $211
$:82,071
(-1) 'lnclude$ 'P~rGhi?:~ePiqiu$1,~f1t Sche~ul~:1$&-/ ~Glud:e~ other. ~teaqjUstmai1tS.
B~,sla
. Tariff
Percent
Increase
(tj
. :0,8% .
0;0%
ATTACHMENT 1
Case No. AVU-O8-01/AVU-O8-
Order No. 30647
Page 3 of 4
AVJS-TA:UT/LIT1ES
lPA"f:jC) GA?
PR:ESEN:t'AND,PROPosffi'RATECOMPONENTS BY SCHEDULE,
(a)
Generaf.Seritice . Schedu!a,1 01
aslc ChCjrge
UsageoCharge:
All therms
Base
RateC1)
(b)
$1.10.8~8
LarQe GeneriLService - S.chedule 11'
Usage Charge: '
. First200therms
200-000th~rms
1;000- to OOOthemls
Ali 'o,,~rto;:qop~th?m1;S .
Iv1lni(numdh.ar9~:
per/i:ionth
per.th(!rm
$32~
Present pres,ent ,
Rate i.(2.)Billln Rate(c) (d)
$3.2$
($0.0.0328) $'10560
$1;O.91~7 ($.'MG56'4) $1.0~57:3.
~1A7':J1.9
($q,
O9-5~) $ LOs,75S
"$0,9:7077 :($0;00564) :$0,9051::1
$~J.:~70
($,q.
oO~41. ~'sq~g69r3$15553, $1~6i$$
~cf~P82k. ,1$P.QQ,5$'4) '~O;302~8'
HiQh. AnnllaLL()ad:Facitbr::l'ar~e Getler.'atSerVtce ~:.S'cfiedule f21.';';' :M:QVE TO$CH1.11
U~age'charg!!: ,
Fu:st200;:tlierms . $1,0:8'048200.50q:thernu; ,$1;08048. '
500.000 ttlerms $'hG7.31-9
1;000. '10j'OQOtherms
' $.
0: 970,'fl
Afl over' Hj;oOO the/JT\'~ $O,9'5~.99
MinImum Ch;3rg.
pet~pntb
per therm
$3;StU3
$0;,30822
($O.OQ654-J
$q.
OO65
~$Q~Ob'65Z)
-(~q.Dp.f:!~) .
:($O.i)o.6~2J .
St.D7-3~,
~:t.~O73$1.0666:7
, ~Q;9()42?:,$O;~547
$386.1~
(Sa.OOS52)$G.3.Q170 .
Intecrupfible Servlce-- s6hedule.it'31
Usag~,CFi9(ge:
. Ail T.herm~$O_S7i57 ~$_D;Op8G8')$0"g6za9
Ttansportati6n-SeMce.~ScheduJe14.6Basic cti?rge $'iocMb .
Us.l:ge:Cba.rge:Alrtherms ~(j.1o.97fj
$Q"bo,eil
$!M~i$'
General
Rate
JiTcreas.e
(e)
~0.
05087
. .$(j.
O~44S
~a.Q1087
$O~-a4023
, .
:$0.00:0;23
$;j:M.
~O.O6534
~O;i)Q;358
SO,O10a-7
O!W~3
~o.ot961
($21,8.&1)
$0;03430
, $(1.
. $~J)O086
(1) Incluct~SChiadOle1'50 ~ ?tJr.~sed 'G,~$. ~'Adj..
(2) ilTC:h,ldes SchedUle 155 _.~as'~te AQj;, SChe.quI$ 191 -ede,fgy Effjci~ty Rider A(ij.
5ch. 191
ChanQe
(f)
(~Ooo1 0)
O~OO010:)
-.($0,00.0:1(1).
I$0~:OO01Q)1
\$();Qgp=i~~
$g_
OO~
~o,orw1~f
$IM9078
$0.0007.8
$0;;00078
$\1.00078
Proposed
Billing
Ratef2)
(9)
$4~00
$1-.1$647
$1.1400$
$1.07832
$1'.0(1526
$O.~552$
. $j.
~1;~2;
$(J ~9*-4~ .
$':1.1400:S'
$M7S3;2
$.t.Q7S3;2
:~1.0052,6
$0.96525
~1.157r5.2
$6#248.
, . $0..89.759
' $2O0;OQ
$6;11062
P~()posed
Bas,
Rate(1)
(/1) .
$4.
$1.1597:5'
,$1.14562
'$-1.08406
. 51,01100
$0,97'1-0-0
'$l~?~~~
~O.:3Q!i!22.
~1,14~82
$1,O84()6
$1,08406 .
$1.0110,0
$Q;971 00
$~67,
$q.30$~
.$0.90637
$2.0MQ "
$OA1G.ti.2
22.
4:6%
0.%
1%'
Q%.
0..00/0:-
00/,,-
0..
=0%
-5&6%
O;~%
ATTACHMENT 1
Case No. AVU-08-01/AVU-08-
Order No. 30647
Page 4 of 4
'
'
" .
.
'
J"
'
-
!.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AV
I
S
3
~
A
U
n
L
r
e
m
S
.
P
r
O
f
o
t
t
1
1
\
J
.

.
tl
\
l
f
~
I
H
1
Y

Z
:
P
O
$
l

-
De
.
c
C
:
l
H
P
e
r
p.
o
9
1
1(
h
H
~
o
,
J\
I
l
bq
i
c
t'
t
o
n

.
PC
A

A
u
t
h
(
i
t
l
Z
e
d

E
x
p
e
:
l
i
s
e
1
h
u
F
l
t
e
b
i
i
l

S
i
l
l
i
pc
A
4
~
mh
o
'
f
1
i
i!
d
n
~
,
-
Q
W
g
S
_
yjj
I
i
J
'
L
.
I3
'
i'I
f
t
n
!
i
!
i
'
IQ
i
l
l
!

.
F~
b
-
Ma
r
;
O
9
.
,
/l
p
(
C
O
9
Mi
l
v
'
d
9
Ju
r
i
-
O
R
)l
I
H
)
9
~l
i
Q
~
9
9
'S
e
p
,
Or
;
;
!
i
O
g
No
'
hO
9
De
e
-
Ac
'
co
i
J
i
J
l
5
4
T
-

N
a
l
r
f
J
a
l
Ga
s
Fu
~
1
l2
8
34
7
74
~

f
:
r
,
l~
~
;
9
4
1
1
1
/
~
g
;
b
~
~

l
J
.
!5
!
A
?
8

7
;
~
O
1
69
'
i
J

5
;
~9
0
.
7
2
0

5
89
0
)1
5

7
49
1
;
:
~
5
7

.
10
;
2
4
9
)
7
t
.
)

1
0
,
52
3
;
6
6
6
1
2
.
4
1
6
,
53
4

13
,
3B
O
4~
7

14
,
59
7
47
7
3-
1
;
6
0
7
12
5

'
:t
9
f
O
;
,
iJ
i
J
'
t

2
,
'7
2
7
:4
5
'
9

'
:
1
:
;
.
93
2
)
1
0
8

2
:
,
i
5
8
2
i
4
4
:
'
1
;
2
5
5
;
6
7
3
,
1
,
33
3
;
O
.
2:;
62
5
O2
5
i
M
a

j
~O
9
47
4

3
1(
(
8
3
3

2
,
93
6
27
7

'
98
7
,
1
5
1
7g
i
32
Q
.
i\
$
3
'

5
11
t
a
s
1

,
1;
\
2
J
;
9
J
b
43
9
;
6
8
~

.
4J
1
.
4
;
1
4
4
'

i
,
O8
'
2
A
3
1

~
:
i
~
l
j
O
~
,
3:
7;
$
9
0
;
t
1
4
1
o
i
l
t
)
'
~
.
tt
3

!i
;
O
8
2
;
~
8
5
.
8
;
6
8
2
;
7
5
6
'
~
.
27
1
96
0

7
,
65
7
96
7
Ac
t
;
'
!
~
D
t
9
~
~
-

i?
v
r
c
J
1
J
l
s
l
i
~

p
o
~
e
~
.
A
c
c
O
V
I
l
.
l
'
5
0
1

"T
h
e
r
~
a
l

F
u
e
.
'
A~
~
w
nf
M
t
"
i1
l
e
(
p
(
R
~
s
a
l
I
j
7M
3
1
A
&
B

~
:
2
G
1
;
9
4
~
";
5
Q
P
;
3
.
.
5.
.
64
/
1
0
0
4
3
:
3

.
9:
3
J
;
9
,
!3
2
:
!
'
i
t
3
~4
8
56
8

H
.
9:
?
a
i
3
a
2
~
9
J
i
'
1
a
:
5
.
2
(

4
;
9
0
Q
i
2
9
Z
4i'
2
8
1
'
3J

,
71
"
8
;
6
8
4

5
.
5A
6

3
,
92
3
;
7
,
.
;3
3
.
.
.
.

"
.
'o
v
(
e
d~
u
p
pr
y

E
j
(
p
e
t
l
:
l
e
,

1
5
9
64
3
.
8
6
5

~
l
;
!
!
;
j
&
i

f
6
5

'
1
6
;
8
8
:
1
.
14
6
;
1
.
'
~
;
~
6
1
:
i
:
\
f
I
!
!
$
;
t
1
'
8
O5
9

-
~
:
31
8
74
5
'

-
~
.
OO
(
j
.
8;
.
32
5
;6
6
!
J
1
(
\
;
;
.
48
:
(
J
M
o

18
;
2
3
4
;
4
B
B
~

2.
0
;
;
9
9
7
44
0

58
'
3
ii
7
.
2:
1
'3
1
(
j
,
46
1
'
tr
o
g
,
A
I
T
f
j
!
f
d
i
:
l
'
i
i
i
i
m

a
i
l

h
:
o
'
Re
t
a
I
l
S

I
i

le
6
:
:
i
i
i
J
'
d
;

P
'
d!
i
i
l
f
G
f
d
~
~

n
6
'
~
;
i
t
i'$

i
i
'
.
Ja
i
t
:
o
g
30
5
;
t
9
~

.
F.
'
f
i
b
,
o
a
2~
:
9
;
1
8
1
j!
5
'
t1
S
Z
?7
4
~3
.
o
'2
'
90
9
24
0
.
4
9
7
23
7
57
.
.
.

2
~
O
i
8f
g
26
9
68
4
~,
'A
b
(
~
~
Mii
V
'
Ju
n
i
a
!
:
!
~~
i
:
i
I
;
:
O
~
4i
~
1
W
Y
~
46
2
75
5
4t
i
~
M
3
21
"
7
43
0
40
,
1
4
9
'
25
4
11
9
4!
3
.
01
7
'2
4
1
J
3
a
O
4'4
,
4"
B
Z
Se
p
,
O
9
23
2
;
66
6
Or
;
;
I
;
,
25
9
41
.
0
be
c
-
a
9
r,
?
~
j
I
(
.
Re
.
t
a
ll
-
at
~
~1

M
W
h
Po
l
l
a
,
c
h

q
e
n
w
~
,
if
o
t
l
,

M
W
h
12
0
i
O
0
8
35
.
90
2
35
.
75
5
42
;
57
6
30
3
72
3
41
.
3
3
3
Kli
'
1
(
e
:
'
F.
~
f
.
P
Q
l
,
c
Q
e
c
.

Z
O
0
8

t
h
e

R
~
'
a
i
l

R
~
v
e
n
u
e

(:
r
e
d
l
t
r
i
i
f
e

I
s
l
h
!
)
t
i
n
b
a#
9
~
1
1

R
)
j
l
~
;
6
r
;
$
M
,
45
i
M
W
h
;
r
o
r
2
0
0
9
;
1
h
~

R
e
\
.
~
i
l
R
Q
v
e
n
!
;
l
~
C
(
e
d
l
f
R
a
(
e
'
i
s
:
$
~
3
;
6~
/
M
W
h
'
pe
r

J
o
h
n
s
o
n

D
i
i
e
t
;
I
,
,
~
P
a
g
e
1
4
.
SI.
I
t/
I
(I
)
O~
~
C:
:
:
:
-
I
D.
C
:
-
I
(I
)

I

~
r
n
ZO
:
:
I
:
?
~

wO
r
n
O~
Z
Q'
)
~
-
I
oI:
I
o
C:
:
:
:
N
...
.
.
.
.

Pa
g
e

1

o
r

1